↓ Skip to main content

Birth cohort differences in the use of medications in a Brazilian population of older elderly: the Bambuí cohort study of aging (1997 and 2008)

Overview of attention for article published in Cadernos de Saúde Pública, September 2011
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (70th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
9 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
16 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Birth cohort differences in the use of medications in a Brazilian population of older elderly: the Bambuí cohort study of aging (1997 and 2008)
Published in
Cadernos de Saúde Pública, September 2011
DOI 10.1590/s0102-311x2011001500014
Pubmed ID
Authors

Antônio Ignácio de Loyola Filho, Josélia O. A. Firmo, Elizabeth Uchôa, Maria Fernanda Lima-Costa

Abstract

This study examined differences in the use of medications in two birth cohorts (born from 1916 to 1926 and from 1927 to 1937) among older elderly in the population-based cohort study in Bambuí, Minas Gerais State, Brazil. The study used data on participants who were 71-81 years of age in the baseline survey in 1997 (n = 492) and in the 11th wave, in 2008 (n = 620). The number of medications currently consumed (mean = 4.6 and 3.4, respectively) and prevalence of polypharmacy (46.6% and 29.1%, respectively) were higher in the more recent cohort as compared to the earlier one. These differences were independent of gender, age, schooling, number of medical visits in the previous 12 months, and number of chronic conditions. The more recent cohort showed significant differences in the use of psychoactive drugs, lipid modifying agents, drugs for diabetes, and antithrombotic agents, as well as changes in drugs used for arterial hypertension. In general, these changes are consistent with those observed in elderly populations in high-income countries.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 16 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 16 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Doctoral Student 1 6%
Unknown 15 94%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 1 6%
Unknown 15 94%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 18 October 2011.
All research outputs
#15,169,949
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from Cadernos de Saúde Pública
#778
of 1,855 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#90,408
of 141,299 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cadernos de Saúde Pública
#6
of 20 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,855 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.2. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 54% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 141,299 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 20 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 70% of its contemporaries.